Sorry, I jumped the gun in last post. My ADD? I didn't read your post carefully. I deleted the post because it doesn't really affect your argument. I also had trouble understanding his thoughts on evolution vs natural selection. But I thinks he wants to maximize physical/chemical laws that guide evolution over natural selection kinda in the same way that Helium came after Hydrogen, I think, as Jacob notes:
Chomsky‟s naturalism is based on the Galilean assumption that we ought to look for deep physical explanations, which in turn leads him to maximize the contribution of physical laws and downplay the role of natural selection in the evolution of complex biological systems. He seems to assume that time is not ripe yet for providing explanations of cognitive phenomena based on natural selection for we still miss basic insights into the physical constraints under which natural selection must operate. I certainly am in no position to judge whether he is right. Still, what is not always clear from Chomsky‟s writings is whether he thinks that naturalistically inclined externalist philosophers and evolutionary psychologists are merely guilty of neglecting the role of physical constraints in evolution or whether they are more seriously mistaken in assuming that natural selection is involved in explaining why the behavior of human beings exemplifies the law of universal gravitation.